mockobjects-java-dev

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Griffin C. <gri...@ho...>]

Ah, very cool..

Hadn't noticed the nat module in the java implementation, yet.

Yes, more .NET Mock Objects are coming.  System.Data is up first...

As for rolling in NMock stuff, I am thinking that would be a good thing as 
opposed to keeping it in the java implementation.  .NET developers might not 
know it is there.

Steve, Tim, or Philip, want to chime in as how to structure/organize these 
kinds of things?

-Griffin


>From: Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...>
>To: "Griffin Caprio" <gri...@ho...>, 
>moc...@li...
>Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?
>Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 01:48:22 +0100
>
>Griffin, NMock takes a different approach to DotNetMock.
>
>Both libraries are pretty much direct ports of existing libraries; 
>DotNetMock comes from the main Java MockObjects library, whereas NMock 
>comes from JMock and PythonMock that Nat Pryce wrote (in the nat module).
>
>NMock uses dynamic bytecode generation to create mocks at runtime which are 
>configured by the unit-tests.
>
>The DotNetMock library is better suited for hand-rolled mocks as it is very 
>flexible and customizable whereas NMock is for when you need something 
>quick'n'dirty. I'd imagine the DotNetMock project to also supply a set of 
>existing mock implementations for common .NET libraries.
>
>I think a lot can be gained from combining our efforts to get the best of 
>both worlds (the dynamic stuff and predicate library from NMock with the 
>expectation library from DotNetMock).
>
>Cheers,
>-joe
>
>Joe Walnes, ThoughtWorks
>
>At 18:57 06/10/2002 -0500, Griffin Caprio wrote:
>>I see that there is a NMock project in the mockobject-java source tree.
>>Darren Hobbs and I are already working on a .NET Mock Objects project on 
>>sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/dotnetmock). We already 
>>have the core framework implemented.  Our first release will be this week, 
>>once we polish the build and documentation process.  After that we are 
>>hoping for community input as to what to implement next.
>>
>>Is NMock an exact replication of the java mock objects?
>>
>>If so, can I suggest that we combine our efforts, so as not to create 
>>competing .NET Mock Object Implementations?




Griffin Caprio
cell: (773) 230-0936


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Griffin C. <gri...@ho...>]

Sounds good.  I would like to keep the dynamic stuff and static stuff 
together, also

Joe, would you like to move the module to the dotnetmock project on 
sourceforge?

-Griffin


>From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
>To: "Griffin Caprio" 
><gri...@ho...>,<jo...@tr...>,<moc...@li...>
>Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?
>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:14:17 +0100
>
> > As for rolling in NMock stuff, I am thinking that would be a good thing 
>as
> > opposed to keeping it in the java implementation.  .NET developers might
>not
> > know it is there.
> >
> > Steve, Tim, or Philip, want to chime in as how to structure/organize 
>these
> > kinds of things?
>
>I'm increasingly convinced that we want to merge the two approaches and
>would like to do the same in the Java world.
>
>As for separate or same project, I don't really mind. Joe started a module
>here just to have somewhere to put it. He could move if he liked. The main
>thing is to keep things cross-linked.
>
>S.




Griffin Caprio
cell: (773) 230-0936


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

Personally I'd rather see dotnetmock move over here.

Not to try and subsume what you're doing but to try and keep the flow of
ideas between different implementations going.

It would be nice to present a united front rather than a whole series of
small loosely related projects.


On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:58, Griffin Caprio wrote:
> Sounds good.  I would like to keep the dynamic stuff and static stuff 
> together, also
> 
> Joe, would you like to move the module to the dotnetmock project on 
> sourceforge?
> 
> -Griffin
> 
> 
> >From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
> >To: "Griffin Caprio" 
> ><gri...@ho...>,<jo...@tr...>,<moc...@li...>
> >Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?
> >Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:14:17 +0100
> >
> > > As for rolling in NMock stuff, I am thinking that would be a good thing 
> >as
> > > opposed to keeping it in the java implementation.  .NET developers might
> >not
> > > know it is there.
> > >
> > > Steve, Tim, or Philip, want to chime in as how to structure/organize 
> >these
> > > kinds of things?
> >
> >I'm increasingly convinced that we want to merge the two approaches and
> >would like to do the same in the Java world.
> >
> >As for separate or same project, I don't really mind. Joe started a module
> >here just to have somewhere to put it. He could move if he liked. The main
> >thing is to keep things cross-linked.
> >
> >S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Griffin Caprio
> cell: (773) 230-0936
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
-- 
Jeff Martin <je...@mk...>
mkodo

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Joe W. <jo...@tr...>]

As well as providing a central resource and starting point, bigger 
umbrella-like projects have increased commonality, user input and overall 
'clout'. And you get the trust factor too - I'd naturally pay more 
attention to something on Jakarta than on a personal geocities homepage.

Saying that, it's common that larger communities get bogged down in too 
many standards, leadership disputes, arguments and Bolotics (TM). 
Thankfully it hasn't happened on MO :).

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to keep it all together 
and prevent the fragmentation.

-Joe

p.s. In the mean time I'm carrying on with the commits. You can't stop me - 
no you can't! Never!!!!


At 21:24 14/10/2002 +0100, Steve Freeman wrote:
>I'm in 2 minds about this. On the one hand, it would be nice to have
>everything in the same place. On the other hand, on sourceforge, the
>project seems to be the unit of control, who gets to be a commiter
>etc -- so that seems like the right granularity. If anything, there
>might be an argument for having mockobjects as a glue project, for
>documentation say, and adding a new mockobjects-java.
>
>Any opinions, anyone?
>
>S.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@mk...>
> > Personally I'd rather see dotnetmock move over here.
> >
> > Not to try and subsume what you're doing but to try and keep the flow
>of
> > ideas between different implementations going.
> >
> > It would be nice to present a united front rather than a whole series
>of
> > small loosely related projects.
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>Welcome to geek heaven.
>http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>_______________________________________________
>Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
>Moc...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

> As well as providing a central resource and starting point, bigger
> umbrella-like projects have increased commonality, user input and overall
> 'clout'. And you get the trust factor too - I'd naturally pay more
> attention to something on Jakarta than on a personal geocities homepage.

that said, Jakarta is not one single project (is it?).

> Bolotics (TM).

shouldn't that be spelt "Bollotics"?

> The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to keep it all together
> and prevent the fragmentation.

OK.

> p.s. In the mean time I'm carrying on with the commits. You can't stop
me -
> no you can't! Never!!!!

just watch me...

S.

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

I'm in 2 minds about this. On the one hand, it would be nice to have
everything in the same place. On the other hand, on sourceforge, the
project seems to be the unit of control, who gets to be a commiter
etc -- so that seems like the right granularity. If anything, there
might be an argument for having mockobjects as a glue project, for
documentation say, and adding a new mockobjects-java.

Any opinions, anyone?

S.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@mk...>
> Personally I'd rather see dotnetmock move over here.
>
> Not to try and subsume what you're doing but to try and keep the flow
of
> ideas between different implementations going.
>
> It would be nice to present a united front rather than a whole series
of
> small loosely related projects.

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Griffin C. <gri...@ho...>]

I like the idea of the seperate projects, with www.mockobjects.com being the 
hub for all information.  That way, any new projects (ports, implementation, 
etc..) won't need to be managed by the www.mockobjects.com guys.  It would 
be tough to control a single project that has 47 project admins, one for 
each "port".  Similar to how the xUnit ports were handled.

I definatly think that there should be a central, generic area of 
information about the direction of the mock objects community in general.

-Griffin


>From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
>To: "MockObjects" <moc...@li...>
>Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?
>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:24:20 +0100
>
>I'm in 2 minds about this. On the one hand, it would be nice to have
>everything in the same place. On the other hand, on sourceforge, the
>project seems to be the unit of control, who gets to be a commiter
>etc -- so that seems like the right granularity. If anything, there
>might be an argument for having mockobjects as a glue project, for
>documentation say, and adding a new mockobjects-java.
>
>Any opinions, anyone?
>
>S.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@mk...>
> > Personally I'd rather see dotnetmock move over here.
> >
> > Not to try and subsume what you're doing but to try and keep the flow
>of
> > ideas between different implementations going.
> >
> > It would be nice to present a united front rather than a whole series
>of
> > small loosely related projects.
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>Welcome to geek heaven.
>http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>_______________________________________________
>Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
>Moc...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev




Griffin Caprio
cell: (773) 230-0936


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Re: [MO-java-dev] .NET Mock Objects?

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

> As for rolling in NMock stuff, I am thinking that would be a good thing as
> opposed to keeping it in the java implementation.  .NET developers might
not
> know it is there.
>
> Steve, Tim, or Philip, want to chime in as how to structure/organize these
> kinds of things?

I'm increasingly convinced that we want to merge the two approaches and
would like to do the same in the Java world.

As for separate or same project, I don't really mind. Joe started a module
here just to have somewhere to put it. He could move if he liked. The main
thing is to keep things cross-linked.

S.